Seriously, what the was the good thing MTV did? They haven’t been relevant in ten years plus.

Seriously, what the was the good thing MTV did? They haven’t been relevant in ten years plus.

Oh, that’s the game plan?
Man, I didn’t mean to give the ending…and the script hasn’t even been written yet :( sorry.

*********
back to reality.

It has zero to do with freedom of expression. the kid got suspended for about a week for thumbing his nose at school rules and guidelines. He was not thrown in jail, he didn’t get a swat paddle in the rear, he was not fined. He was not expelled.

I don’t call that a harsh punishment. In fact, I’ll take it a step father: right or wrong, they had thier day in court. They were heard. For the most part, they lost, but they did get many people (and the 9th court) to see thier views. They lost in the end, but while the suspension wasn’t extreme, they had a day in court.

I can understand where some of the conservative RR groups would be on the kid’s side. After all, despite the impression that the RR is not offended that one would take a hit of grass for The Lord, the idea is that limiting a student’s speech could cross over (eventually) to religious statements. Indeed, while unconstitutional (it is not in the constitution), the separation of church and state
prohibits public schools from the teaching of the theory of intellegent design along the theory of evolution, and sometimes can prevent students from talking about religion/prayer at school events (such as a grad cermony).

But the irony of such support also comes back to bite the Right (of which I relate to strongly) in the rear end. Recently, a law student at the Christian College Regent was put to task for posting on Facebook a freeze frame image of Regent President Pat Robertson (700 Club) scratching his head innocently with the middle finger. It seems he violated the school rules too. He also is standing for Freedom Of Expression. He even wrote a brief, which was rejected by Regent…his case is pending. Now you folks want “harsh”? Just hit that link, and you’ll see what harsh is.

Still…when one knowingly violates a campus policy, which is for the respect of others, the saftey of others, and guidelines which do not opress anyone, one who violates policy must expect an action and/or response be taken at point of discovery.

Let’s put it in this context.

Instead of Joseph Frederick making a banner that said ‘Bong Hits For Jesus’ would people felt any different if the banner read ‘Six .45 Magnum hits For Jesus’ or ‘Porno For Jesus’? You bet. Better yet, would someone think differently if his banner simply read ‘Alaska Kicks Ass: God Bless The USA’?

In any case…read the case of Joseph Frederick. Something about it bugs me. The banner was raised…where the Principal can clearly see it. That’s thumbing your nose at authority, a challenge to those who are attempting to teach young people for varied futures.

I consider neither Joseph Frederick nor the Regent law student heroes of Free Speech no more than Larry Flynt.

The point I made was that it wasn’t just about being funny. It was more than being funny. I was clearly saying, that if it was only for the humor, he could have chosen a different phrase. So the argument that he did it “just for laughs” is inaccurate and disproved. Who cares would be the people who need to uphold the rules. He could have chosen another topic not against rules, and then those people who care (which I have just stated are the ones who need to uphold the rules) would not need to be involved.

Bottom line is, the act of displaying the sign was not against the rule that the school took issues with. If he held up a sign that said “Go Tigers” or whatever their school mascot may have been, I doubt he would have been suspended for 10 days. He chose a subject that is against the rules, when it would have been just as simple for him to perform the same action without breaking the rules. He did so knowingly and he got what was deserved. He earned that suspension with his own choices.

Also, I understand that you think the 10 day suspension was a little too much, but as far as punishment selection, you and I are not in a position to make that decision. Neither of us are familiar with this students past history of behavior in class. Perhaps he is a well behaved student, or perhaps he has served recurring detentions. Punishment decision always takes into account the past behavior, and we are simply ill-equipped to decide if this was really too harsh or not strong enough.